DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 31-33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-10, 13-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 20140322414 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Young discloses a cooling mold unit for cooling molded cheese products by means of a cooling liquid (“mold housings 12 provide a cavity 17 around the mold tubes 14 thereby forming a water jacket through which chilled water flows to cool cheese that has been injected into the mold tubes” [P0018]; see figures and descriptions thereof), said cooling mold unit comprising:
at least one cooling mold that can be filled with a cheese mass and that has—in the position of use—an end-face upper opening and an end-face lower opening, (“vertically extending mold tubes 14” [P0018] and “mold tubes 14 and their apertures 35 in the bottom plate 16” [P0021])
at least one tray having at least one leadthrough for receiving the cooling mold, and (“bottom plate 16 of each mold housing 12” [P0019])
a base element that is connected to a lower end of the cooling mold and that has
at least one recess which is associated with the lower opening and through which the lower opening is accessible, (“cheese inlet ports 38 are formed by an upward extending portion 33 of the cheese auger assembly 34 which receives cheese” [P0021])
Young discloses “a mold housing within which a plurality of mold tubes are located for receiving the plastic pasta filata cheese” (Claim 2) but does not describe a peripheral gap is formed between a margin of the leadthrough and an outer wall of the cooling mold.
Nevertheless, it would be obvious that a clearance would exist because without any clearance the insertion of the tubes into the housing would be exceedingly difficult. In other words, a person of skill in the art would know that fitting a tube of diameter X into a hole of diameter X is very difficult compared to fitting the tube into a hole of diameter X-c where c is a clearance amount. This is official notice that the use of clearances when inserting tubes into holes in known for the purpose of reducing friction and interference (see, e.g., https://www.fictiv.com/articles/engineering-fits-clearance-transition-interference)
It would be obvious to configure the prior art such that wherein the cooling mold is arranged in the leadthrough, and wherein the leadthrough is dimensioned such that an at least sectionally peripheral gap is formed between a margin of the leadthrough and an outer wall of the cooling mold.
In reference to claim 2-3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See reference at “plurality of mold tubes” (P0012) and figures.
In reference to claim 4-9 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
It would be obvious to space the tubes from the walls in order to maintain a clearance for the same reasons articulated in the rejection of claim 1. Examiner takes notice that the use of spacers for the purpose of maintaining a clearance is known and the selection of a size of said clearance is not inventive.
In reference to claim 10 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See cited prior art figures.
In reference to claim 13-19 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See cited prior art figures.
In reference to claim 20-21 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. It would be obvious to line the cooling molds with a corrosion protective coating or lining
In reference to claim 22-29, the claims are rejected similarly as above. Changing the shape of the housing from circular to rectangular is not inventive.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 20140322414 A1) in view of Reddy (US 20110072982 A1)
In reference to claim 12, Young does not disclose the tube extending beyond the tray. In the same field, cheese (abstract), Reddy discloses a similar invention (see figures 4) and demonstrates wherein the tube can extend beyond the tray (see Fig 4). It would be obvious to configure the tube as shown by Reddy as the Reddy tube is suitable for the same intended purpose. Selection of an art recognized alternative suitable for the same purpose is obvious.
Claim 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes (US 5504007 A1).
In reference to claim 22, Haynes discloses a cooling device for cooling molded … products by means of a cooling liquid, said cooling device comprising:
at least one cooling mold unit that can be filled with a … mass, (Figure 2 element 32)
at least one rectilinear cooling path along which the at least one cooling mold unit can be moved, wherein the cooling mold unit can at least sectionally be acted on by the cooling liquid along the cooling path. (Figure 2 element 10)
Haynes does not disclose the mass is cheese, however, it would be capable of this intended use.
In reference to claim 24, see figure 1 element 22 of Haynes.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744